Ask anyone. The French can’t do rock – not the head-banging stuff, or the surfer stuff, or the bar-band stuff – none of it. Johnny Hallyday may be the French Elvis Presley – but that’s kind of a joke. He just sounds too damned French, which may be the problem. French may be too smooth-sounding a language, as it glides subtlety along, and there’s also the matter of ingrained cultural norms. If a culture develops a habit of sophisticated blasé detachment and ennui, where elegant style and flawless self-control are the best revenge, it sure ain’t going to develop rebellious and defiant hard rock. In a culture that admires deep thought – from Descartes to Sartre to the incomprehensible structuralists and beyond – purposefully crude rock music is unnatural, if not gauche. Anyone who listens to French pop and rock knows they’re faking it – and they kind of know it too. The rock stations in Paris play American stuff.

This isn’t a lack of passion – it’s just a matter of how you process that passion, and French pop music has long specialized in heartbreak and regret and what should have been and what will never happen now, which travels well enough. Think of the song Autumn Leaves – originally Les Feuilles Mortes, with lyrics by Jacques Prévert of all people. That was all tragic regret and every half-assed pick-up band in the late fifties and sixties covered it – it became a standard. At the same time the world was smitten by tiny Édith Piaf– all massive defiance and passion, in a small powerful package, the raw and real thing. Her signature song was “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien” – No, I regret nothing – and everyone believed her. It was defiance. You make your decisions and you live with them. You did what you thought was right or that you felt was right, or sensed was right – in fact, you did what was right at the time – and only cowards have regrets. Cowards don’t even try. Regrets are for losers, which makes this interesting:

Piaf dedicated her recording of the song to the French Foreign Legion. At the time of the recording, France was engaged in a military conflict, the Algerian War (1954–1962), and the 1st REP (1st Foreign Parachute Regiment) – which backed a temporary putsch of 1961 by the French military against president Charles de Gaulle and the civilian leadership of Algeria – adopted the song when their resistance was broken. The leadership of the Regiment was arrested and tried but the non-commissioned officers, corporals and Legionnaires were assigned to other Foreign Legion formations. They left the barracks singing the song, which has now become part of the French Foreign Legion heritage and is sung when they are on parade.

Yes, the French Foreign Legion still marches to that tune – you make your decisions, to do the right thing, and you do it, and then you don’t whine about it later. You may have been wrong, terribly wrong, but you can still be proud, and proudly defiant. That’s heroic, or the sign of a sociopath. Piaf was one sick puppy after all – an alcoholic mess with a disaster of a personal life. But she was proud and defiant. Everyone loves that, even if it can be a bit scary.

We just don’t love the French, or haven’t since they calmly explained that they would not be joining us in our Iraq War – saying it was the wrong response to the issues at hand, and not very intelligent and certainly not a sophisticated response, and actually quite gauche. That tore it, and we’ve hated those guys since then, or at least many of us did. Everyone remembers Freedom Fries. It’s just that everyone forgot the Piaf song. A good number of those who got us into that war are singing that song, and that should have been the title of the startling new documentary on Dick Cheney – he regrets nothing, although he doesn’t sing about it, and he still hates the French.

Others are deciding on whether regret is appropriate. This is now the exact ten-year anniversary of the Iraq War – our Shock and Awe bombing of Baghdad began on March 20, ten years ago. Eight years, eight months, three weeks and four days later we were outta there – with not much to show for it. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and even George Bush sheepishly admitted that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 at all – or more precisely, said he never even implied such a thing. Now Iraq is cozy with Iran and supporting the Syrian government as we try to figure out a way to support the rebels trying to overthrow it – and the Sunnis are still periodically blowing up the Shia, or the other way around, while the Kurds up north will sooner or later break away and join their Turkish brethren, causing no end of trouble. Only John McCain thinks this war was the best thing America had ever done. Everyone else is wondering how the hell this happened. Maybe regret, just this one time, really is appropriate.

There is the polling. Gallup notes here that 53% of Americans think the war was a mistake and 42% percent do not, which leaves Kevin Drum quite puzzled:

How is it, ten years after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight, that 42 percent of the country still believes that invading Iraq wasn’t a mistake? What would it take to convince these people?

Another poll asked the question slightly differently – “All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?” They got these results:

Only 24 percent of respondents to the new poll said they thought the war had been worth fighting, while 54 percent said it had not been. Another 22 percent said they were not sure. Three-quarters of Democrats and 55 percent of independents said the Iraq War was not worth fighting. But Republicans were more likely to say that it was worth the cost than it was not – by a 47 to 30 percent margin.

It’s the Republicans who were singing the Piaf song, which has its ironies, and earlier James Joyner pointed out something odd:

As we approach the tenth anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq on March 20, it’s worth reflecting on the fact that it has been nearly seventy years since America’s last successful major war.

On August 15, 1945, known as Victory over Japan Day or V-J Day, the Japanese unconditionally surrendered, marking the end of the Second World War and establishing the United States as a superpower. Since that day, the United States has lost three major wars – Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq – and is counting down the months until its loss in Afghanistan.

So what do all these unsuccessful wars have in common? I’d focus on one thing: none of them were ever intended to be major wars. … Conversely, the U.S. has arguably been successful in plenty of wars that were meant to be small and really did stay small: the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Libya, etc.

So there’s your lesson: if you plan for a small war, be damn sure that it’s going to stay small. If it might not, then plan for a big war. If that’s unacceptable, don’t go to war. That’s the bare minimum lesson, anyway.

There are other matters too. Nada Bokos, a CIA analyst in the lead-up to the war, notes here that at the CIA’s Iraq Branch in the Counterterrorism Center, they didn’t think Saddam had any substantial ties to al-Qaida, and reported that, but got edged out:

On Sunday, March 16, 2003, I watched Cheney on “Meet the Press” contradict our assessment publicly. “We know that he [Saddam] has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups,” Cheney said, “including the al-Qaeda organization.” I was basically watching Cheney field-test arguments that we would have to anticipate – and rebut – at CIA. Except instead of asking us questions behind closed doors, Cheney was asserting to the public as fact something that we found to be anything but. I found myself yelling at the TV like I was contesting a ref’s blown call in a football game.

Ah, there are lots of things to regret. This woman regrets that she was unable to convince Cheney he was dead wrong about the actual facts, but then he was a man impervious to regret, so he could not admit he was wrong, especially after what he said on national television and pretty much everywhere else. He’d have felt right at home in the French Foreign Legion. For a review of all this there’s the book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Hubris: The Inside-Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War – and the MSNBC documentary based on the book – fairly straightforward reporting on bad decisions and big egos and hidden motives and willful blindness, and a dysfunctional press. No one got much of anything right, but they won’t admit that now.

There were no regrets, but ten years has passed and that changes things. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum, the man who came up with that “Axis of Evil” formulation in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, offers a long Newsweek column finally saying that “all of us who advocated for the war have had to do some reckoning”. The column is an attempt at that and opens with his asking for a bit of sympathy, or at least understanding:

My youngest daughter was born in December 2001: a war baby. When my wife nursed little Beatrice in the middle of the night, she’d hear F-16s patrolling the Washington skies. During the weeks before, anthrax attacks had killed five people and infected 17 others. What would come next?

In October, I attended a crowded briefing in the fourth-floor auditorium of the Executive Office Building, at which the Secret Service explained its plans to protect the White House against a biological attack. They weren’t very reassuring. Basically, we’d all be dead. Even more disturbing were the small-session briefings by staffers for the new Homeland Security adviser. They warned of simultaneous car bombings at strategic intersections, targeted assassinations of officials as they retrieved their morning papers from their stoops, and poisonous gases released in Metro stations.

Like many Washingtonians, my wife and I had prepared an emergency kit in the basement: canned goods, bottled water, flashlights, batteries. We had an evacuation plan, a rendezvous point two hours outside the city, and a stipulated wait time after which she was to presume I was a casualty.

These anxieties may sound luridly overdramatic today, but they suffused the mental atmosphere of the government of the United States as President Bush made the fateful decision to launch the Iraq War.

There was that, but also an obsession in the White House with the Middle East:

The first time I met Ahmed Chalabi was a year or two before the war, in Christopher Hitchens’s apartment. Chalabi was seated regally at one end of Hitchens’s living room. A crowd of nervous, shuffling Iraqis crowded together at the opposite end. One by one, they humbly stepped forward to ask him questions or favors in Arabic, then respectfully stepped backward again. After the Iraqis departed, Chalabi rose from his chair and joined an engaged, open discussion of Iraq’s future democratic possibilities.

The last time I saw Chalabi was in his London apartment, on the very eve of war. My little group arrived past midnight. Chalabi was listening to the evocative strains of Sufi music. He showed me a black-and-white photograph of seven men, wearing the clothes of the 1940s. They were the board of directors of a company his father had founded: a mixed group of Sunni, Shiite, and Christian, and even a Jew. Chalabi remarked that this picture was taken while Europe was tearing itself apart in genocidal violence. He didn’t add that it was taken shortly after British forces defeated a pro-Axis coup in Baghdad – but failed to prevent a murderous pogrom against Baghdad’s Jewish population.

I was less impressed by Chalabi than were some others in the Bush administration. However, since one of those “others” was Vice President Cheney, it didn’t matter what I thought. In 2002, Chalabi joined the annual summer retreat of the American Enterprise Institute near Vail, Colorado. He and Cheney spent long hours together, contemplating the possibilities of a Western-oriented Iraq: an additional source of oil, an alternative to US dependency on an unstable-looking Saudi Arabia.

Ahmed Chalabi was the exile we’d planned to put in power to fix everything, but he was a trickster and a fraud who just knew the right people within the Project for the New American Century – see all the details – and all the talk was of oil. He and Cheney had big dreams, or Cheney did – but the odd thing was, that in the end, no one made a decision about anything:

You might imagine that an administration preparing for a war of choice would be gripped by self-questioning and hot debate. There was certainly plenty to discuss: unlike the 1991 Gulf War, there was no immediate crisis demanding a rapid response; unlike Vietnam, the U.S. entered the war fully aware that it was commencing a major commitment.

Yet that discussion never really happened, not the way that most people would have imagined anyway. For a long time, war with Iraq was discussed inside the Bush administration as something that would be decided at some point in the future; then, somewhere along the way, war with Iraq was discussed as something that had already been decided long ago in the past.

That would mean there was nothing to regret. This just happened, so the question of regret gets tricky:

Over the past 10 years, there have been few days when the war in Iraq was absent from my thoughts. People often ask me whether I have regrets. It seems absurdly presumptuous to answer the question. I could have set myself on fire in protest on the White House lawn and the war would have proceeded without me. And yet … all of us who advocated for the war have had to do some reckoning. If the war achieved some positive gains, its unnecessary costs – in human life, in money, to the prestige and credibility of the U.S. government – are daunting and dismaying. If we’d found the WMD, it would have been different. If we’d kept better order in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam, it would have been different. If more Iraqis had welcomed the invasion as we expected, it would have been different. If the case for the war had been argued in a less contrived and predetermined way, it would have been different.

But it wasn’t different. Those of us who were involved – in whatever way – bear the responsibility.

Yes, but Dick and Ahmed were sitting in the corner talking oil and that should have been a warning, as Glenn Greenwald notes:

Wars rarely have one clear and singular purpose, and the Iraq War in particular was driven by different agendas prioritized by different factions. To say it was fought exclusively due to oil is an oversimplification. But the fact that oil is a major factor in every Western military action in the Middle East is so self-evident that it’s astonishing that it’s even considered debatable, let alone some fringe and edgy idea. Yet few claims were more stigmatized in the run-up to the Iraq War, and after, than the view that oil was a substantial factor.

Greenwald points out that, in 2006, George Bush himself carefully warned us that there was a “responsible” way to criticize our efforts in Iraq and an “irresponsible” way to do that, and we’d better get it straight:

Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate – and it’s even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas.

The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Greenwald reminds us that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq “nothing produced faster or more vicious attacks on war opponents than the claim that oil was playing a substantial role in the desire to invade” – and provides examples. It wasn’t about oil – what about the WMD stuff? Oops. What about the liberation of the Iraqi people? Oops. What about transforming the Middle East into a region of peace, filled with democracies with free market economies and all of them loving Israel? No? There’s a process of elimination at work here. Oil remains, and Greenwald quotes our new Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, who said about the Iraq war in 2007:

People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.

I’m trying to remember if this is even a revelation anymore. Certainly anyone who argued at the time that oil was one of the motivations for the Iraq War was ridiculed mercilessly, but since then it’s been all but obvious, right? There was the fact that the only building that American troops protected during the post-invasion rioting was the Oil Ministry. There were all those lovely maps of Iraqi oil fields that we learned had been part of Dick Cheney’s energy task force since long before 9/11. There was the urgency over restoring Iraq’s oil production that seemed to take precedence over almost everything else. Hell, no less than Alan Greenspan conceded after the fact that the war was “largely about oil.”

Besides, in a broader sense, even lots of war supporters acknowledged that, in general, American interest in the Middle East is driven strongly by our interest in the stability of Middle East oil supplies. That’s not exactly a news flash, and if it’s true in general then it must also have been at least part of the specific motivation for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. After all, until we did that, the oil sanctions against Iraq would stay in place.

Drum is just pleased with Frum:

Still, it’s good to hear this from the horse’s mouth. The Iraq war wasn’t all about oil, but there’s not much question that it was in the forefront of a lot of people’s minds.

Greenwald claims this is proof the war was for oil, not against WMDs. But the two are not mutually exclusive. As for good faith, I’ve long since stopped believing that Dick Cheney believed there really were WMDs in Iraq – but I remain unsure about Bush.

Sullivan says that he was “seriously convinced” by the WMD argument, because he wanted to be convinced, and says he now regrets that he was somewhat of a useful idiot – but then everyone has regrets, except for that Piaf woman, the guys in the French Foreign Legion, and Dick Cheney. Even George Bush has decided to remain silent – he won’t even talk about the matter.

An Ohio teenager wearing a t-shirt with “killer” scrawled on it gave a profane statement and made an obscene gesture in court as he was sentenced to life in prison without parole on Tuesday for killing three students in a school shooting rampage last year.

He sneered and gave everyone the finger – no regrets. It was an odd coincidence.

Share this:

About Alan

The editor is a former systems manager for a large California-based HMO, and a former senior systems manager for Northrop, Hughes-Raytheon, Computer Sciences Corporation, Perot Systems and other such organizations. One position was managing the financial and payroll systems for a large hospital chain. And somewhere in there was a two-year stint in Canada running the systems shop at a General Motors locomotive factory - in London, Ontario. That explains Canadian matters scattered through these pages. Otherwise, think large-scale HR, payroll, financial and manufacturing systems. A résumé is available if you wish.
The editor has a graduate degree in Eighteenth-Century British Literature from Duke University where he was a National Woodrow Wilson Fellow, and taught English and music in upstate New York in the seventies, and then in the early eighties moved to California and left teaching.
The editor currently resides in Hollywood California, a block north of the Sunset Strip.

8 Responses to Assessing Regret

Interestingly Bush’s partner in crime from across the Atlantic is similarly coming under great pressure since his stories about the intelligence of WMD are unravelling fast and the Chilcot Inquiry into the whole charade now looks like it will expose the lies that got the UK into Iraq. He, despite his ostentatious (for us Brits) Christianity, is holding to his story but, like the lawyer he is, his ground for intervention has shifted to asserting that Saddam was a monster and deserved dethroning – (mebbes aye mebbes naw as we scots say) – but in UK law dislike of a regime is not a casus belli for its overthrow. He is basically now on the very shaky ground of arguing ends justify the means even if those means included lying to Parliament and the British people.

I was then, and am still now, convinced that the war wasn’t primarily about oil, but I do agree with Drum:

“American interest in the Middle East is driven strongly by our interest in the stability of Middle East oil supplies.”

Yes, if it weren’t for oil, we probably wouldn’t care a bit about anything that happens in that part of the world in the first place. But when you think about it, in terms of oil, what were we trying to get from them in that war?

I mean, the real concern about oil is that there be lots of it on the market, so the global prices will be kept low. So what had been keeping Iraq’s oil off the market? Us! We had an embargo on Iraq. If we really wanted oil prices to be lower, all we had to do was lift our embargo!

But no, people say, that’s not what we wanted. What we wanted was to control — or better yet, own — Iraq’s oil.

So how’d that work out? We never did it. In fact, the administration never even tried.

In fact, Bush and his people kept claiming that the Iraqis could use oil to pay for “their” war — which meant working to get production up, not for us, but for them. In fact, what with all the fires and bombings, it took a real long time to get production back up to normal.

Had the war really been about oil, we would have tried to keep Saddam as a friend, and not gone to war at all.

The real cause of the war?

Yes, I’m sure there was a bit of annoyance at not having defeated Iraq back in 1991, but mainly I think we need to look at that often-ignored “New American Century” stuff you mention, with the neocon influence inside the administration and in the conservative “intelligentsia” pushing for a new role for America in the world — that being, forcibly shoving the Middle East away from tyranny and into the realm of democracy and freedom.

Personally, I still say that, ironically, Francis Fukuyama set the stage for all this with his “The End of History and The Last Man” book, which got all his (at that time, before he renounced being one himself) fellow neocons’ brains fussing that the end of world Communism would mean they’d have that much less to get exercised about, and, just to give themselves something to do, they essentially ended up pushing us all into a stupid war.

Yeah, maybe. But it ain’t the choir invisible that cheers such drivel.

Two “proofs” have been suggested for why oil was not a huge factor in the instigation of the assault on a nation which, though governed by an irredeemable thug, had done little or nothing to the US that warranted such. First, it is posited that if Iraq’s oil was so important to the world’s supply, the Bush II administration could have simply lifted the embargo imposed and vociferously enforced by the previous 2 or 3 administrations. That theory beggars political reality. Both Bush I and Clinton, one from each party in case it has been forgotten, spent their entire presidencies either beating the crap out of Iraq or describing Saddam as a dispicable monster, with congress leading cheers from the sidelines, demanding that Saddam (and Iraq) be starved. The media was standing tall alongside them. So the suggestion that W Bush and his pal Cheney could simply reverse course and lift the embargo in the face of the inevitable and massive approbation for doing so is absurd. And when it is realized that such a move would have been seen as clearly and entirely for oil over “principles”, the thinking public would have been disabused of the idea that foreign policy is unaffected by oil.

The second “proof” suggested is that “the administration never even tried” to “control” Iraq’s oil. Oh, that was on the front burner from the beginning. Not “owning”, but cerrtainly “controling” the Iraqi oil patch. Apart from the obvious fact that the “Oil Ministry” was the only structure protected against the rioting and pillage that followed the immediate flush of victory, there was little public evidence of the intent to control the oil. Failing to protect Iraq’s museums was tragic and verges on a war crime. But failing to secure the arms and munitions depots after cavilarly disbanding – but not disarming – the Iraqi military is what screwed up the securing of the oil fields and refineries and messed up the plans to control of the Iraqi oil. When things began to go very badly for US occupation forces – never even remotely adequate, as General Shinsaki predicted – it was already too late. The cakewalk was over. Imagine the howls from every direction if Marines were taken from Faluja to guard those oil facilities not already blown up by sabotage. And imagine further the loud complaints of carreer military officers seeing their troops killled piecemeal while engaged in such duties. Like almost all of the Iraq adventure, W’s administration was allways too late to “even try” to do what they imagined they would when they started out.

That administration’s best and brightest were at their best before Cheney and Wolfowitz hired them to work in W’s administration, when they were writing white papers to the Israeli government about ‘securing the realm’, or similar polemics to Clinton about the wisdom of going into Iraq years earlier than when they got one of their guys close enough to whisper into a daydreaming prodigal son dreams of being a “war president” and all the fame and glory that supposedly brings.

Anyone who wants to learn about the people who brought the Iraqi debacle on our country need only do a bit of research on PNAC and the crap their “political thinkers” spouted that “important” people bought into and acted upon – and including their synchophants in the print and cable media. No need to do any deep research on that part, They’re not in hiding, as one might expect, they’re all mostly still working in public – all older and wealthier, but few wiser. The same tired old crap is still being spouted by the same jerks that have been around for a very long time – some as far back as Nixon’s wonderland. They’re all clipping their coupons, dragging their chains, and waiting for appointments in the next republican administration. Familiar names, all of them. Study them and their past. Dangeous and treacherous losers, all of them.

My argument was that, despite conventional wisdom, the Iraq War was not primarily about oil, an argument you called “drivel”. Presumably, you, coming to the defense of conventional wisdom, believe the opposite, that the war was primarily about oil?

So what’s your plan — to fight so-called “drivel” with the real thing?

You mock my “proofs” — even putting the word in quotes! — but I never claimed to offer proof, only evidence to back up my belief, while your mostly incomprehensible treatise offers neither in support of yours. With all those words you so listlessly placed in your comment, nowhere can one find even one of them in support of your claim that the Iraq War was about America owning or controlling Iraq’s oil — only a feeble speculation that, had the Bush administration intended to do that in the first place, they probably were … what, too embarrassed to follow through? If so, you’re just being silly.

On the other hand, maybe I’m mistaken to assume you had originally meant to offer a cogent counter-argument to my argument, but then got side-tracked and forgot what you were going to say.

I regret the use of the word “drivel”. Though a perfectly good word, it has no place in civil discourse, and I apologise to you.

In rereading my contribution, i recognise that it is somewhat disjointed and was frankly slapdash. Not the sort of thing I would have ever submitted to a court. But that was not its purpose. It just made a few valid points, (albeit somewhat digressively), in contravention of the two basic points you enunciated at the outset of your comment, and with which you are certainly free to disagree.

Perhaps I should have included a brief history of the skullduggery of “energy” companies and their supra-national position in our world. The people who run these entities (“peoples”?) are not interested in having “lots of [oil] on the market”. They’d be damn poor capitalists if the wished for gluts. Scarcity is what’s wanted in the minerals game, whether it be diamonds, gold or energy products. For scarcity in the oil and gas markets, it requires as much CONTROL as one can obtain. Any mineral owner who leases and watches while his minerals’ increases in value all belong to the lessor while being “shut in”, has experienced this.

In the Iraq context, an occupying army would be the ideal source of control – just as were the Marines a half dozen times in the early 20th century to protect US banana growers in Central America. But in the Iraq context such a strategic move could not be accomplished, despite the the best intentions of the industry’s in-house representative, Cheney. The whole thing was botched from the beginning due to the magikal thinking of the governement’s in-house PNAC people and their refusal to listen to competent military advice and also in placing an incompetant in charge in Baghdad. Despite it’s recent overuse as a discriptor, these people were the very definition of hubris.

As to your other point, the obviousl, inevitable and unpalatable political fallout in 2000-2002 of lifting the [Saddam] oil embargo after a decade of daily public demonizing of the guy by both parties and by pundits of every stripe seem inarguable.

In fact, your explanation sounds quite plausible, but only assuming the neocons did actually attempt to control Iraqi oil, for whatever reason. Not that I have any inside knowledge about this either way, but no, I wouldn’t put it past them. If nothing else, they certainly proved themselves in the end to be the “gang that couldn’t shoot straight”, as you yourself aptly describe.

I also see your point about “control” and “gluts”. While the world might think our intention would have been to keep the oil flowing from Iraq, maybe the truth is it was flowing, since Iraq seemed to be have little trouble bypassing the embargo by finding willing buyers, and probably at fire-sale prices. And something else we civilians tend to forget in our desire for the lowest possible oil prices is that extremely low prices tend to hurt our domestic American oil business more than that of Saudi Arabia, for example, since operating costs here tend to be higher — therefore, “our” incentive might actually be to keep Iraqi oil output on the low side, regardless of who “owns” the oil.

But while I’d guess this is not what is meant by most of the cynics who believe, just because they always assume the worst, that the war was primarily about oil, I must concede that you do make a good argument. (In fact, I’d also guess that you have some inside knowledge of all this that you are, for some reason, not letting on to.)

And as for the “incivility” — apology accepted. You more than made up for it in you gracious reply.

About This Site

This site offers a daily column on current events, and unlike other blogs, in long form. Short posts pointing to this and that and saying "Oh my!" seems a bit lazy. Columns here are an attempt to think things through. If you'd like to come along for the ride, fine. If you have neither the time nor patience for that, that is also fine - you can click on the LINKS tab at the top of the page and visit the sites that offer quick hits. Those provide the raw material for the analyses here.

The views here are mine alone, save for the occasional column from Ric in Paris or comments from key readers, like Rick, the News Guy in Atlanta, and others.

Commentary and guest columns are posted here, but there is a sister site, Just Above Sunset Photography, where images are far more important than words. That site is updated daily. Take a look.

JUST ABOVE SUNSET has been online, in various formats, since May 2003. Click on the ABOUT tab at the top of the page for more on that, and a note on who I am.